Static NAT and IPSec VPN

This maybe stupid but may somebody help on this.
Site A --- Internet --- Site B
An IPSec VPN is implemented between Site A and Site B. Some "nat 0" commands are used on Site A PIX to avoid addresses being translated when communicating with site B.
But now there is a problem, there are several public servers which have static NAT entries by "static" command. And it looks like these entry will still be valid even if the "nat 0" is presenting. And thus those inside IPs which have a static NAT, will be translated once it reaches the PIX and can not go via the VPN tunnel.
May someone advise me how to overcome this? Thanks.

Your question really pertains to the nat order of operations. Nat 0 (nat exemption) is first in the order. It preceeds all other including static nat. The servers you mention will absolutely be included in the nat 0 unless they are specifically denied in the nat 0 acl.

Similar Messages

Static-nat and vpn tunnel bound traffic from same private address?

Hi guys,
I have site-to-site tunnel local host @192.168.0.250 and remote-host @172.16.3.3.
For this local host @192.168.0.250, I also have a static one-to-one private to public.
static (mgmt-192,outside-50) 216.9.50.250 192.168.0.250 netmask 255.255.255.255
As you can see, IPSec SA shows end-points in question and traffic is being decrypted but not encrypted host traffic never enter into the tunnel, why?
How can I resolve this problem, without complicating the setup ?
BurlingtonASA1# packet-tracer input mgmt-192 icmp 192.168.0.250 8 0 172.16.3.3
Phase: 1
Type: CAPTURE
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
MAC Access list
Phase: 2
Type: ACCESS-LIST
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Implicit Rule
Additional Information:
MAC Access list
Phase: 3
Type: ROUTE-LOOKUP
Subtype: input
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
in 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 outside-50
Phase: 4
Type: ROUTE-LOOKUP
Subtype: input
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
in 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 mgmt-192
Phase: 5
Type: ACCESS-LIST
Subtype: log
Result: ALLOW
Config:
access-group mgmt_intf in interface mgmt-192
access-list mgmt_intf extended permit icmp any any
access-list mgmt_intf remark *** Permit Event02 access to DMZ Intf ***
Additional Information:
Phase: 6
Type: IP-OPTIONS
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Phase: 7
Type: INSPECT
Subtype: np-inspect
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Phase: 8
Type: NAT-EXEMPT
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
nat-control
match ip mgmt-192 host 192.168.0.250 outside-50 host 172.16.3.3
NAT exempt
translate_hits = 5, untranslate_hits = 0
Additional Information:
Phase: 9
Type: NAT
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
static (mgmt-192,outside-50) 216.9.50.250 192.168.0.250 netmask 255.255.255.255
nat-control
match ip mgmt-192 host 192.168.0.250 outside-50 any
static translation to 216.9.50.250
translate_hits = 25508, untranslate_hits = 7689
Additional Information:
Phase: 10
Type: NAT
Subtype: host-limits
Result: ALLOW
Config:
static (mgmt-192,dmz2-172) 192.168.0.0 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
nat-control
match ip mgmt-192 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 dmz2-172 any
static translation to 192.168.0.0
translate_hits = 28867754, untranslate_hits = 29774713
Additional Information:
Phase: 11
Type: VPN
Subtype: encrypt
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
Phase: 12
Type: FLOW-CREATION
Subtype:
Result: ALLOW
Config:
Additional Information:
New flow created with id 1623623685, packet dispatched to next module
Result:
input-interface: mgmt-192
input-status: up
input-line-status: up
output-interface: outside-50
output-status: up
output-line-status: up
Action: allow
BurlingtonASA1#
Crypto map tag: map1, seq num: 4, local addr: 216.9.50.4
access-list newvpn extended permit ip host 192.168.0.250 host 172.16.3.3
local ident (addr/mask/prot/port): (192.168.0.250/255.255.255.255/0/0)
remote ident (addr/mask/prot/port): (172.16.3.3/255.255.255.255/0/0)
current_peer: 216.9.62.4
#pkts encaps: 0, #pkts encrypt: 0, #pkts digest: 0
#pkts decaps: 53, #pkts decrypt: 53, #pkts verify: 53
#pkts compressed: 0, #pkts decompressed: 0
#pkts not compressed: 0, #pkts comp failed: 0, #pkts decomp failed: 0
#pre-frag successes: 0, #pre-frag failures: 0, #fragments created: 0
#PMTUs sent: 0, #PMTUs rcvd: 0, #decapsulated frgs needing reassembly: 0
#send errors: 0, #recv errors: 0
local crypto endpt.: 216.9.50.4, remote crypto endpt.: 216.9.62.4
path mtu 1500, ipsec overhead 74, media mtu 1500
current outbound spi: 37CA63F1
current inbound spi : 461C843C
inbound esp sas:
spi: 0x461C843C (1176273980)
transform: esp-aes-256 esp-sha-hmac no compression
in use settings ={L2L, Tunnel, }
slot: 0, conn_id: 77398016, crypto-map: map1
sa timing: remaining key lifetime (kB/sec): (3914997/25972)
IV size: 16 bytes
replay detection support: Y
Anti replay bitmap:
0x003FFFFF 0xFFFFFFFF
outbound esp sas:
spi: 0x37CA63F1 (936010737)
transform: esp-aes-256 esp-sha-hmac no compression
in use settings ={L2L, Tunnel, }
slot: 0, conn_id: 77398016, crypto-map: map1
sa timing: remaining key lifetime (kB/sec): (3915000/25972)
IV size: 16 bytes
replay detection support: Y
Anti replay bitmap:
0x00000000 0x00000001

Hi
intersting VPN ACL
object-group network DM_INLINE_NETWORK_18
network-object YYY.YYY.YYY.0 255.255.255.0
object-group network DM_INLINE_NETWORK_22
network-object UUU.UUU.UUU.0 255.255.255.0
access-list outside_access_in extended permit ip object-group DM_INLINE_NETWORK_22 object-group DM_INLINE_NETWORK_18
Static NAT
static (Inside,outside) XXX.XXX.XXX.171 YYY.YYY.YYY.39 netmask 255.255.255.255
No NAT
object-group network DM_INLINE_NETWORK_20
network-object UUU.UUU.UUU.0 255.255.255.0
access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip ZZZ.ZZZ.ZZZ.0 255.255.255.0 object-group DM_INLINE_NETWORK_20
VPN CLient Pool
No pool configured as it uses the interesting traffic or protected traffic in ASDM - UUU.UUU.UUU.0 is the IP address range at the far side of the site to site VPN.
I hope this helps
Thanks

Static Nat and VPN conflict

Hi
I could not quite find any information that was close enough to my problem that would enable me to solve it so hence I am now reaching out to you guys.
I have a Cisco ASA running 8.2(1) and I am using ASDM to manage the firewall. I have a Linux VPN server on the inside with and IP address of YYY.YYY.YYY.39 with a static NAT to the outside with an address of XXX.XXX.XXX.171 .
I have a site to site VPN tunnel which terminates on the outside of the ASA on the outside interface XXX.XXX.XXX.190 .
Traffic from the YYY.YYY.YYY.0/24 network can't transverse the site to site VPN as there is a conflict of IP address's on the far side so it is natted via a dynamic policy to host address ZZZ.ZZZ.ZZZ.100
Users remote into the inside(YYY.YYY.YYY.0/24) for support via the Linux VPN server (.39) and then need to communicate down the site to site VPN. The problem is that the static NAT for the incomming connections takes preference and bypasses the site to site VPN tunnel for outbound traffic. I tried to create a policy Static nat but it tries to modify the static nat that handels the incomming traffic to the Linux server.
I hope the above makes sense.

Hi
intersting VPN ACL
object-group network DM_INLINE_NETWORK_18
network-object YYY.YYY.YYY.0 255.255.255.0
object-group network DM_INLINE_NETWORK_22
network-object UUU.UUU.UUU.0 255.255.255.0
access-list outside_access_in extended permit ip object-group DM_INLINE_NETWORK_22 object-group DM_INLINE_NETWORK_18
Static NAT
static (Inside,outside) XXX.XXX.XXX.171 YYY.YYY.YYY.39 netmask 255.255.255.255
No NAT
object-group network DM_INLINE_NETWORK_20
network-object UUU.UUU.UUU.0 255.255.255.0
access-list Inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip ZZZ.ZZZ.ZZZ.0 255.255.255.0 object-group DM_INLINE_NETWORK_20
VPN CLient Pool
No pool configured as it uses the interesting traffic or protected traffic in ASDM - UUU.UUU.UUU.0 is the IP address range at the far side of the site to site VPN.
I hope this helps
Thanks

Static NAT with IPSec tunnel

Hi,
I have a hopefully fairly basic question regarding configuring some static NAT entries on a remote site 887 router which also has a IPSec tunnel configured back to our main office. I am fairly new to networking so forgive me if I ask some really silly questions!
I have been asked to configure some mobile phone "boost" boxes, which will take a mobile phone and send the traffic over the Internet - this is required because of the poor signal at the branch. These boxes connect via Ethernet to the local network and need a direct connection to the Internet and also certain UDP and TCP ports opening up.
There is only one local subnet on site and the ACL for the crypto map dictates that all traffic from this network to our head office go over the tunnel. What I wanted to do was create another vlan, give this a different subnet. Assign these mobile boost boxes DHCP reservations (there is no interface to them so they cannot be configured) and then allow them to break out to the Internet locally rather than send the traffic back to our head office and have to open up ports on our main ASA firewall.
From my research I came across this article (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk583/tk372/technologies_configuration_example09186a0080094634.shtml
So I went ahead and created a separate vlan and DHCP reservation and then also followed the guidelines outlined above about using a route-map to stop the traffic being sent down the tunnel and then configured static NAT statements for each of the four ports these boost boxes need to work. I configure the ip nat inside/outside on the relevant ports (vlan 3 for inside, dialer 1 for outside)
The configuration can be seen below for the NAT part;
! Denies vpn interesting traffic but permits all other
ip access-list extended NAT-Traffic
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 172.16.0.0 0.3.255.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.128.0 0.0.3.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 12.15.28.0 0.0.0.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 137.230.0.0 0.0.255.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 165.26.0.0 0.0.255.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.56.231.0 0.0.0.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.49.0 0.0.0.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.61.0 0.0.0.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 192.168.240.0 0.0.7.255
deny ip 172.19.191.0 0.0.0.255 205.206.192.0 0.0.3.255
permit ip any any
! create route map
route-map POLICY-NAT 10
match ip address NAT-Traffic
! static nat
ip nat inside source static tcp 192.168.1.2 50 85.233.188.47 50 route-map POLICY-NAT extendable
ip nat inside source static udp 192.168.1.2 123 85.233.188.47 123 route-map POLICY-NAT extendable
ip nat inside source static udp 192.168.1.2 500 85.233.188.47 500 route-map POLICY-NAT extendable
ip nat inside source static udp 192.168.1.2 4500 85.233.188.47 4500 route-map POLICY-NAT extendable
Unfortunately this didn't work as expected, and soon after I configured this the VPN tunnel went down. Am I right in thinking that UDP port 500 is also the same port used by ISAKMP so by doing this configuration it effectively breaks IPSec?
Am I along the right lines in terms of configuration? And if not can anyone point me in the direction of anything that may help at all please?
Many thanks in advance
Brian

Hi,
Sorry to bump this thread up but is anyone able to assist in configuration? I am now thinking that if I have another public IP address on the router which is not used for the VPN tunnel I can perform the static NAT using that IP which should not break anything?
Thanks
Brian

Static NAT and multiple WAN (DSL) ports

Hi,
we have a hardware router with 3 ADSL/SDSL lines. The SDSL has a range of public IP addresses.
We assigned these public IP adresses as DMZ to the hardware router, and added some of the IP's as secondary IP addresses on the BM's public interface. Filters have been disabled for testing, and we could ping the secondary IP's from the internet.
In the next step, we set up a static NAT to a server in the private LAN, which should be reached from travelling users. Pinging the natted address from the internet reached the server (seen with etherreal), but BM did not set the public IP as the source of the ping reply.
For testing, we set a static route on the BM to the PC on the internet, using the DMZ as default gateway, which was used for testing, and that worked fine.
Is there a chance to get the reply from the natted Server back to the DMZ, where the request came from? Setting static routes isnt possible, because users come with changing IP addresses.
Detlef

In article <[email protected]>, Pinkel wrote:
> Is there a chance to get the reply from the natted Server back to the
> DMZ, where the request came from? Setting static routes isnt possible,
> because users come with changing IP addresses.
>
This is a routing issue, with a possible workaround.
When the BMgr server gets a packet it needs to route, it's going to look
in its routing tables to know which interface to send it from, and which
IP address will be the next hop. Traffic coming inbound will naturally
leave the private interface and route normally to the internal address.
Traffic going back to the internet is another matter.
Traffic from the internet is, naturally, going to have a public IP
address that will not be in the BMgr server's routing tables, unless you
put in a static route. If the destination address for a packet is not
in the BMgr routing table, it will send the packet to the only choice it
has: the default route. Thus, all outbound non-static-nat'd traffic
will end up going out the default route.
I have used, on occasion, a workaround that forces traffic coming in
from one link to go back out that link. If you think of how BMgr
(NetWare) is routing replies to these packets, you realize that the only
way it is going to go back out link B (if link A is the default) is if
the packet actually comes from the address for link B. The way I've
made this happen is to enable dynamic NAT on the link B address. (For
instance, Cisco router with link B, totally different subnet - due to
isp changeover - from link A. Link A was the default. Enabled NAT with
overload on link B LAN address, and BMgr then saw all packets coming in
from that router as local packets simply coming from the link B LAN
address. So it replied to link B. However, all outbound (non-reply)
traffic to the internet still went out link A. I've also configured a
second internet link for VPN only usage, but that was no more than a
static route entry.)
Craig Johnson
Novell Support Connection SysOp
*** For a current patch list, tips, handy files and books on
BorderManager, go to http://www.craigjconsulting.com ***

Static nat and service port groups

I need some help with opening ports on my ASA using firmware 9.1.2.
I read earlier today that I can create service groups and tie ports to those. But how do I use those instead of using 'object network obj-ExchangeSever-smtp' ?
I have the ACL -
access-list incoming extended permit tcp any object-group Permit-1.1.1.1 interface outside
Can this statement
object network obj-ExchangeSever-smtp
nat (inside,outside) static interface service tcp smtp smtp
reference the service port groups instead?
Thanks,
Andrew

Hi,
Are you looking a way to group all the ports/services you need to allow from the external network to a specific server/servers?
Well you can for example configure this kind of "object-group"
object-group service SERVER-PORTS
service-object tcp destination eq www
service-object tcp destination eq ftp
service-object tcp destination eq https
service-object icmp echo
access-list OUTSIDE-IN permit object-group SERVER-PORTS any object
The above would essentially let you use a single ACL rule to allow multiple ports to a server or a group of servers. (Depending if you use an "object" or "object-group" to tell the destination address/addresses)
I am not sure how you have configured your NAT. Are they all Static PAT (Port Forward) configurations like the one you have posted above or perhaps Static NAT configurations?
You can use the "object network " created for the NAT configuration in the above ACL rule destination field to specify the host to which traffic will be allowed to. Using the "object" in the ACL doesnt tell the ASA the ports however. That needs to be configured in the above way or in your typical way.
Hope this helps
- Jouni

Static NAT and same IP address for two interfaces

We have a Cisco ASA 5520 and in order to conserve public IP addresses and configuration (possibly) can we use the same public IP address for a static NAT with two different interfaces? Here is an example of what I'm refering too where 10.10.10.10 would be the same public IP address.
static (inside,Outside) 10.10.10.10 access-list inside_nat_static_1
static (production,Outside) 10.10.10.10 access-list production_nat_static_1
Thanks for any help.
Jeff

Hi Jeff,
Unfortunately this cannot be done, on the ASA packet classification is done on the basis of mac-address, destination nat and route, and here you are confusing the firewall, to which interface does the ip belong to. I haven't ever tried to do it, but it should cause you issues.
Thanks,
Varun Rao
Security Team,
Cisco TAC

Windows 8 and IPSec VPN issues

I have a number of customers that leverage the Cisco IPSec VPN. I can connect to the VPN without any problems but when I attempt to RDP, that fails. I have no RDP or ping or anything. Here are some more symptoms of the issues that I find odd:
Anyconnect works just fine
Fortinet VPN clients work fine
Sonicwall VPN clients work fine
Cisco IPSec VPN client is the only one affected
Cisco IPSec VPN client worked fine for months then just decided it was no longer going to allow RDP or ping
I have duplicated this issue on a half dozen or so laptops
This is on a Windows 8 laptop but I believe I have also experienced this on Windows 7
Just to clarify, the IPSec VPN does succesfully connect. But nothing else works after that. I do understand that AnyConnect is the direction that Cisco would like for people to move towards. Unfortunately, I have quite a few customers that are leveraging the IPSec VPN. I have been through a number of laptops in the last year and every single laptop had a working Cisco IPSec VPN for months....then one day it would just stop passing RDP.
Please somebody tell me that there is a workaround for this. I have played with the IP settings for the Cisco Systems virtual adapter in my network and sharing center. I've modified the binding order. I've compared a routeprint from a working laptop to mine....I'm not sure what else to do. I've uninstalled ALL VPN software and only reinstalled the Cisco VPN. So far the ONLY fix I have found is a clean install of Windows and that solution sucks.

Doing a little more homework on this and I noticed that the tunnel details show no bytes sent or recieved and no packets encrypted, decrypted, or discarded....everything is bypassed. My coworker (who is on Windows 7) is able to launch this VPN and connect to the customer's servers without issues and the tunnel details show all of the appropriate data.

Error with Ericsson h5321gw and IPSEC VPN-Connections

There is an error in the Lenovo drivers [7.x] for the Ericsson h5321gw UMTS module.
Symptoms on Windows 7 x64:
UMTS is working fine. When you connect a vpn ipsec connection though the UMTS , the internet connection (and the vpn as well) gets unstable and has a packet loss of 30% to 50%.
Solution:
Install the UMTS drivers in the NDIS 5.0 mode on Windows 7. (The only problem is, that the system boot takes about 1 minute longer with the ndis 5 drivers).
Further Reading: Message 5: http://forums.lenovo.com/t5/T400-T500-and-newer-T-series/Outlook-Exchange-connection-unstable-on-T52...
Howto form the Lenovo Forum:
Force the installation to install Ericsson's vista driver instead of win7 driver. Vista driver is NDIS 5. Installation can be done.
-> extract the Ericsson drivers package but don't let it install the driver. There should be extracted a setup.exe file
-> do the installation with command: setup.exe /zFORCEVISTA
This helped for us.
Tip:
If you want to install the win7 driver back, it can be done with command: setup.exe /zFORCEWIN7
Otherwise using the setup.exe will install the vista ndis 5 when since it once have been told to to install it by /zFORCEVISTA
I hope, Lenovo can solve this issue quickly.
Greetings

I’m not sure this is the same issue you guys are running into, but I’m using the built-in Ericsson h5321gw and ATT SIM on an i7 X1 Carbon. I am required to use a Cisco VPN Client and after connecting successfully to my VPN endpoint via ATT WWAN, I could not get any data in/out the tunnel.
I tried in both Windows 7 and Windows 8 OS, even trying the setup.exe /zFORCEWIN7 work around to no avail.
After doing some searching, I came across a blog post describing the same issue I had.
There is an update to Windows’ DNE that actually solved the issue for me using the standard Erricson W8 (and W7) drivers. (I also performed the h5321gw fireware update from Lenovo, but I did that before the DNEUpdate – that alone did _not_ fix it)
DNEUpdate x64: ftp://files.citrix.com/dneupdate64.msi
DNEUpdate x86: ftp://files.citrix.com/dneupdate.msi
Hope this helps.
Credit from: http://stenby.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/cisco-vpn-client-and-built-in-lenovo-h5321gw-3g-card/

ASA 8.2 - Static NAT and Dynamic NAT Policy together

Hello community,
I have the following problem using a ASA with version 8.2.
1) I have this segment on interface Ethernet 0/0: 192.168.1.0/24
2) Through interface Ethernet 0/1 I will reach several servers using the same source IP, but other servers must be reached using only one IP, for example 192.168.1.70
so, I have configured a Static NAT Rule from interface Ethernet0/0 to interface Ethernet 0/1 which NAT the source IPs to the same IPs: 192.168.1.0/24->192.168.1.0/24. Also I have configured a Dynamic NAT Policy that states when destination IP is "server list" then all the source IPs must be translated to 192.168.1.70.
PROBLEM: when testing it...always the static wins....and Dynamic is never analyzed...Also, no priority for the NAT policy and NAT rules can be done on ASDM...what can I do? is there a way to do this on ASDM or CLI? (preferrely at ASDM)
Thanks for your reply and help!

Hello community,
I have the following problem using a ASA with version 8.2.
1) I have this segment on interface Ethernet 0/0: 192.168.1.0/24
2) Through interface Ethernet 0/1 I will reach several servers using the same source IP, but other servers must be reached using only one IP, for example 192.168.1.70
so, I have configured a Static NAT Rule from interface Ethernet0/0 to interface Ethernet 0/1 which NAT the source IPs to the same IPs: 192.168.1.0/24->192.168.1.0/24. Also I have configured a Dynamic NAT Policy that states when destination IP is "server list" then all the source IPs must be translated to 192.168.1.70.
PROBLEM: when testing it...always the static wins....and Dynamic is never analyzed...Also, no priority for the NAT policy and NAT rules can be done on ASDM...what can I do? is there a way to do this on ASDM or CLI? (preferrely at ASDM)
Thanks for your reply and help!

Problem running DMVPN and IPSec VPN at the same time

I have a hub-spoke VPN network: 2 hub routers are 7206 VXR and remote routers are 2800. Each hub router has had number of point-to-point IPSec+GRE tunnels configured and running with remote sites. I'm now adding DMVPN between each hub router and a few other remote sites. The DMVPN is running fine between hub and spokes, but somehow it caused all the eixsting point-to-point IPSec tunnels drop. Here are some details:
1) Hub DMVPN config:
crypto isakmp key MYKEY address 12.12.12.12
crypto ipsec profile DMVPN
set transform-set DM
interface Tunnel1
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
no ip redirects
ip mtu 1400
ip nhrp map multicast dynamic
ip nhrp network-id 1
ip nhrp holdtime 600
tunnel source G0/0
tunnel mode gre multipoint
tunnel protection ipsec profile DMVPN
router eigrp 1
no passive-interface Tunnel1
2) Spoke DMVPN config:
crypto ipsec profile DMVPN
set transform-set DM
crypto isakmp key MYKEY address 14.14.14.14
interface Tunnel1
ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
ip mtu 1400
ip nhrp map 192.168.1.1 14.14.14.14
ip nhrp map multicast 14.14.14.14
ip nhrp network-id 1
ip nhrp holdtime 600
ip nhrp nhs 192.168.1.1
tunnel source G0/0
tunnel destination 14.14.14.14
tunnel protection ipsec profile DMVPN
3) When DMVPN is up, hub router existing IPSec tunnels are shown ISAKMP failure.
Hub# show crypto isakmp sa
14.14.14.14 20.20.20.20 MM_NO_STATE 1508 0 ACTIVE (deleted)
4) After I shut down interface Tunnel1, existing IPSec tunnels are coming back. ISAKMP SA shows QM_IDLE state.
Have anyone seen similar issues between DMVPN and traditional point-to-point IPSec+GRE tunnels on the same router?
Thanks a lot

I have a hub-spoke VPN network: 2 hub routers are 7206 VXR and remote routers are 2800. Each hub router has had number of point-to-point IPSec+GRE tunnels configured and running with remote sites. I'm now adding DMVPN between each hub router and a few other remote sites. The DMVPN is running fine between hub and spokes, but somehow it caused all the eixsting point-to-point IPSec tunnels drop. Here are some details:
1) Hub DMVPN config:
crypto isakmp key MYKEY address 12.12.12.12
crypto ipsec profile DMVPN
set transform-set DM
interface Tunnel1
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
no ip redirects
ip mtu 1400
ip nhrp map multicast dynamic
ip nhrp network-id 1
ip nhrp holdtime 600
tunnel source G0/0
tunnel mode gre multipoint
tunnel protection ipsec profile DMVPN
router eigrp 1
no passive-interface Tunnel1
2) Spoke DMVPN config:
crypto ipsec profile DMVPN
set transform-set DM
crypto isakmp key MYKEY address 14.14.14.14
interface Tunnel1
ip address 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.0
ip mtu 1400
ip nhrp map 192.168.1.1 14.14.14.14
ip nhrp map multicast 14.14.14.14
ip nhrp network-id 1
ip nhrp holdtime 600
ip nhrp nhs 192.168.1.1
tunnel source G0/0
tunnel destination 14.14.14.14
tunnel protection ipsec profile DMVPN
3) When DMVPN is up, hub router existing IPSec tunnels are shown ISAKMP failure.
Hub# show crypto isakmp sa
14.14.14.14 20.20.20.20 MM_NO_STATE 1508 0 ACTIVE (deleted)
4) After I shut down interface Tunnel1, existing IPSec tunnels are coming back. ISAKMP SA shows QM_IDLE state.
Have anyone seen similar issues between DMVPN and traditional point-to-point IPSec+GRE tunnels on the same router?
Thanks a lot

Cisco ASA Site to Site IPSEC VPN and NAT question

Hi Folks,
I have a question regarding both Site to Site IPSEC VPN and NAT. Basically what I want to achieve is to do the following:
ASA2 is at HQ and ASA1 is a remote site. I have no problem setting up a static static Site to Site IPSEC VPN between sites. Hosts residing at 10.1.0.0/16 are able to communicate with hosts at 192.168.1.0/24, but what i want is to setup NAT with IPSEC VPN so that host at 10.1.0.0/16 will communicate with hosts at 192.168.1.0/24 with translated addresses
Just an example:
Host N2 (10.1.0.1/16) will communicate with host N1 192.168.1.5 with destination lets say 10.23.1.5 not 192.168.1.5 (Notice the last octet should be the same in this case .5)
The same translation for the rest of the communication (Host N2 pings host N3 destination ip 10.23.1.6 not 192.168.1.6. again last octet is the same)
It sounds a bit confusing for me but i have seen this type of setup before when I worked for managed service provider where we had connection to our clients (Site to Site Ipsec VPN with NAT, not sure how it was setup)
Basically we were communicating with client hosts over site to site VPN but their real addresses were hidden and we were using translated address as mentioned above 10.23.1.0/24 instead of (real) 192.168.1.0/24, last octet should be the same.
Appreciate if someone can shed some light on it.

Hi,
Ok so were going with the older NAT configuration format
To me it seems you could do the following:
Configure the ASA1 with Static Policy NAT
access-list L2LVPN-POLICYNAT permit ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
static (inside,outside) 10.23.1.0 access-list L2LVPN-POLICYNAT
Because the above is a Static Policy NAT it means that the translation will only be done when the destination network is 10.1.0.0/16
If you for example have a basic PAT configuration for inside -> outside traffic, the above NAT configuration and the actual PAT configuration wont interfere with eachother
On ASA2 side you can normally configure NAT0 / NAT Exemption for the 10.1.0.0/16 network
access-list INSIDE-NONAT remark L2LVPN NONAT
access-list INSIDE-NONAT permit ip 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.23.1.0 255.255.255.0
nat (inside) 0 access-list INSIDE-NONAT
You will have to take into consideration that your access-list defining the L2L-VPN encrypted traffic must reflect the new NAT network
ASA1: access-list L2LVPN-ENCRYPTIONDOMAIN permit ip 10.23.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0
ASA2: access-list L2LVPN-ENCRYPTIONDOMAIN permit ip 10.1.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.23.1.0 255.255.255.0
I could test this setup tomorrow at work but let me know if it works out.
Please rate if it was helpful
- Jouni

Static NAT - VPN - Internet Access

Does anyone know how to configure the following?
1. An static NAT from an inside ip address to another inside ip address (not physical subnet).
2. The traffic static Natted at the step 1 need to go into a tunnel VPN and at the same time to have internet access.
My router just have two interfaces a WAN and a LAN.
I just created the VPN, the static NAT and the PAT for other users of the subnet to have internet access, but the traffic static Natted just goes over the ipsec tunnel but cannot have internet access.
I tried to apply a route map after the static nat command but since i do not have a physical interface in the same subnet were i am translating the route-map is not applied to the static nat command.
in an extract:
LAN traffic (specific server) --->> static nat to inside not real subnet --->> traffic goes over Tunnel (OK), but no internet access.
BTW. I need to configure the nat before de ipsec tunnel because both lan subnets of the ipsec tunnel endpoint are the same.

Why do you need an inside host to be natted to another inside IP address?
You need to configure a "no nat" policy, for the internet traffic.

Static NAT (in and out) and PAT on a Router

Static NAT and PAT
I need to have a customer network connected to my extranet.
Im not in control of the customer network addressing. But need to configure a VPN connection.
I will supply the router that will also be the customer Firewall to the Internet (PAT).
(1) I need to be able to do PAT on traffic from internal hosts to the Internet.
(2) I need to hide (NAT) the customer network behind a network supplied by me (match-host), when they are accessing my extranet (through VPN).
(3) I need to be able to access hosts on the customer network, through the hiding (NAT) addresses from my extranet (through VPN).
The following configuration will solve (1) & (2), but I can not (3) reach the internal servers from my extranet, except if the internal host has made connection to the extranet, witch will create a translate entry in the NAT table.
Extranet is: 172.16.16.0/24
Internal net is: 192.168.1.0/24
interface Vlan1
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip nat inside
interface FastEthernet4
ip address 1.1.1.1
ip nat outside
access-list 175 deny 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 172.16.16.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 175 permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 any
access-list 176 permit 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.255 172.16.16.0 0.0.0.255
ip nat pool FRO 10.192.10.1 10.192.10.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 type match-host
ip nat inside source list 175 interface FastEthernet4 overload
ip nat inside source route-map HIDE pool FRO reversible
route-map HIDE permit 10
match ip address 176

Create a NAT configuration in the router which also translates even your outside Global address(your extranet) into the inside Global(any private) address through the keyword "rotary".Only this rotary pool will provide the pool of inside global IP address for yopur outside Global IP addresses.
The following white paper will provide you with the required information,
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6640/products_white_paper09186a0080091cb9.shtml

Dynamic PAT and Static NAT issue ASA 5515

Hi All,
Recently we migrated our network to ASA 5515, since we had configured nat pool overload on our existing router the users are able to translated their ip's outside. Right now my issue was when I use the existing NAT configured to our router into firewall, it seems that the translation was not successful actually I used Dynamic NAT. When I use the Dynamic PAT(Hide) all users are able to translated to the said public IP's. I know that PAT is Port address translation but when I use static nat for specific server. The Static NAT was not able to translated. Can anyone explain if there's any conflict whit PAT to Static NAT? I appriciate their response. Thanks!
- Bhal

Hi,
I would have to guess that you Dynamic PAT was perhaps configured as a Section 1 rule and Static NAT configured as Section 2 rule which would mean that the Dynamic PAT rule would always override the Static NAT for the said host.
The very basic configured for Static NAT and Default PAT I would do in the following way
object network STATIC
host
nat (inside,outside) static dns
object-group network DEFAULT-PAT-SOURCE
network-object
nat (inside,outside) after-auto source dynamic DEFAULT-PAT-SOURCE interface
The Static NAT would be configured as Network Object NAT (Section 2) and the Default PAT would be configured with Twice NAT / Manual NAT (after-auto specifies it as Section 3 rule)
This might sound confusing. Though it would be easier to say what the problem is if we saw the actual NAT configuration. Though I gave the reason that I think is probably one of the most likely reasons if there is some conflict with the 2 NAT rules
You can also check out a NAT document I made regarding the new NAT configuration format and its operation.
https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-31116
Hope this helps
- Jouni

Static NAT and IPSec VPN

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for